"Through intense digging I found a researcher who left a notebook public including tweet counts from many years of Twitter’s 10% sampled “Decahose” API and discovered the surprising fact that tweet rate today is around the same as or lower than 2013! Tweet rate peaked in 2014 and then declined before reaching new peaks in the pandemic. Elon recently tweeted the same 500M/day number which matches the Decahose notebook and 2013 blog post, so this seems to be true! Twitter’s active users grew the whole time so I think this reflects a shift from a “posting about your life to your friends” platform to an algorithmic content-consumption platform."
I know it's not the core premise of the article, but this is very interesting.
I believe that 90% of tweets per day are retweets, which supports the author's conclusion that Twitter is largely about reading and amplifying others.
That would leave 50 million "original" tweets per day, which you should probably separate as main tweets and reply tweets. Then there's bots and hardcore tweeters tweeting many times per day, and you'll end up with a very sobering number of actual unique tweeters writing original tweets.
I'd say that number would be somewhere in the single digit millions of people. Most of these tweets get zero engagement. It's easy to verify this yourself. Just open up a bunch of rando profiles in a thread and you'll notice a pattern. A symmetrical amount of followers and following typically in the range of 20-200. Individual tweets get no likes, no retweets, no replies, nothing. Literally tweeting into the void.
If you'd take away the zero engagement tweets, you'll arrive at what Twitter really is. A cultural network. Not a social network. Not a network of participation. A network of cultural influencers consisting of journalists, politicians, celebrities, companies and a few witty ones that got lucky. That's all it is: some tens of thousands of people tweeting and the rest leeching and responding to it.
You could argue that is true for every social network, but I just think it's nowhere this extreme. Twitter is also the only "social" network that failed to (exponentially) grow in a period that you might as well consider the golden age of social networks. A spectacular failure.
Musk bought garbage for top dollar. The interesting dynamic is that many Twitter top dogs have an inflated status that cannot be replicated elsewhere. They're kind of stuck. They achieved their status with hot take dunks on others, but that tactic doesn't really work on any other social network.